I sense some hate.....

[Maken]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-appeal-ayn-t128559/index.html

*Moderator Note: Please do not start threads with a post that contains a link and no other information. This looks like spam and/or attempted Rickrolling.--JMeganSnow*

Edited April 18, 2010 by JMeganSnow
Include moderator notation.

[Dynamite]

I found the forum posts interesting to read, especially from those who attempt to defend Rand and Capitalism; their responses are by far more logical and consistent than the rest.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Heh.... I found comment #71 interesting (don't know if I should quote it here). Here is someone from the other side who understands there must be a government to protect private property.... The anarcho capitalists should find that edifying.

[Thales]

Heh.... I found comment #71 interesting (don't know if I should quote it here). Here is someone from the other side who understands there must be a government to protect private property.... The anarcho capitalists should find that edifying.

I thought post #40 was funny. "Shut up!" That's the best these leftists can do.

I also think it's amusing when leftists say they are not war mongers. The Soviet Union wasn't a vicious war mongering state? N. Korea? etc. It's to laugh.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I thought post #40 was funny. "Shut up!" That's the best these leftists can do.

I also think it's amusing when leftists say they are not war mongers. The Soviet Union wasn't a vicious war mongering state? N. Korea? etc. It's to laugh.

Of course, from reading the comments, these people don't believe the USSR did it right, and some even try to claim it was really some sort of corruption of capitalism.

Of course, someone this committed to the absurdities of the left has to come up with some way to evade the real world consequences of following their policies, so they just claim the USSR wasn't really leftist.

[Thales]

Of course, from reading the comments, these people don't believe the USSR did it right, and some even try to claim it was really some sort of corruption of capitalism.

Of course, someone this committed to the absurdities of the left has to come up with some way to evade the real world consequences of following their policies, so they just claim the USSR wasn't really leftist.

They can evade all the want, but leftists in America and Europe defended the USSR the whole time it existed, especially the extreme ones.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Of course, someone this committed to the absurdities of the left has to come up with some way to evade the real world consequences of following their policies, so they just claim the USSR wasn't really leftist.

Not...again... Would you please elaborate on this? I'm looking for a real answer, not just some dismissive and condescending proof by assertion.

[Dante]

Not...again... Would you please elaborate on this? I'm looking for a real answer, not just some dismissive and condescending proof by assertion.

A real answer as to why the USSR can properly be called "leftist," and why leftists are incorrect when they maintain that their ideals lead to a society very much different from the USSR? Simply put, their ideals are not practicable in reality. Such leftism carves out an immense role for collectivized decision-making on a wide variety of topics; this is a necessary corollary to claiming that physical capital properly belongs to a group of people, rather than individual owners. However, collective decision-making simply does not work. Decision-making must be delegated to individuals, and collectivism morphs into fascism. I am speaking in very broad terms here, of course, and the outline of my argument draws heavily from Hayek's The Road To Serfdom; I would heavily recommend that work as a resource on why socialism must ultimately lead to a fascist structure such as the USSR.

[Trebor]

Not...again... Would you please elaborate on this? I'm looking for a real answer, not just some dismissive and condescending proof by assertion.

Perhaps you'll find this four part (30 minute) YouTube presentation of a talk given by George Reisman helpful:

"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"

Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

[CastleBravo]

#3;" The US loves Rand and libertarian philosophy."

>Libertarian Philosophy

[CastleBravo]

Also, I have never seen the term "materialist" misused so much in my entire life. Reading this fills me with great pride in knowing the ignorance of my opposition.

It is amazing to me what people are capable of once they have abandoned reason.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

A real answer as to why the USSR can properly be called "leftist," and why leftists are incorrect when they maintain that their ideals lead to a society very much different from the USSR? Simply put, their ideals are not practicable in reality. Such leftism carves out an immense role for collectivized decision-making on a wide variety of topics; this is a necessary corollary to claiming that physical capital properly belongs to a group of people, rather than individual owners. However, collective decision-making simply does not work. Decision-making must be delegated to individuals, and collectivism morphs into fascism. I am speaking in very broad terms here, of course, and the outline of my argument draws heavily from Hayek's The Road To Serfdom; I would heavily recommend that work as a resource on why socialism must ultimately lead to a fascist structure such as the USSR.

Thank you, that's a lot better. Well...first of all, I'd like to ask you what you mean by "left" here, since the term is so loosely defined that it's even hard to use. Also, when they "claim the USSR wasn't really leftist", are you using their definition of "leftist"? How would you explain the Israeli Kibbutzim? or Catalonia 1936-1939? or Nicaragua 1984? etc. If you're speaking of communism...well, I'd say it hasn't even been tried by any standards which can be considered "communist" (as established by Marx and Engels) (that doesn't mean it works) but I really don't want to have this discussion again (you can look for some of my previous comments on that if you like) I recall Rand saying that one should avoid Hayek at any cost, but I'll look for it.

Perhaps you'll find this four part (30 minute) YouTube presentation of a talk given by George Reisman helpful:

"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian"

Part 1

Part 2

Part 4

Thank you. I'd love to watch it.

Edited April 14, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Thales]

Thank you, that's a lot better. Well...first of all, I'd like to ask you what you mean by "left" here, since the term is so loosely defined that it's even hard to use. Also, when they "claim the USSR wasn't really leftist", are you using their definition of "leftist"? How would you explain the Israeli Kibbutzim? or Catalonia 1936-1939? or Nicaragua 1984? etc. If you're speaking of communism...well, I'd say it hasn't even been tried by any standards which can be considered "communist" (as established by Marx and Engels) (that doesn't mean it works) but I really don't want to have this discussion again (you can look for some of my previous comments on that if you like) I recall Rand saying that one should avoid Hayek at any cost, but I'll look for it.

Thank you. I'd love to watch it.

Why are you having difficulty with this?

Vladimir Lenin was a communist who worked to create a communist state in the Soviet Union. The country was collectivized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

They certainly didn't create a free society, where men could create and sell the products of their efforts. They enslaved a whole population, and murdered millions, and wherever communism is tried these are the results. Communists invariable promote dogmatism and create an impoverished, enslaved population.

The underlying reason this happens is because collectivists consider the collective to be the highest good, and the individual's highest purpose is to serve the collective. This means that individuals become expendable and mere toys to be played with for the higher purpose. This results from altruism, and the idea that selfishness is evil. That's the fundamental driving force of communism and any form of collectivism.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Why are you having difficulty with this?

Vladimir Lenin was a communist who worked to create a communist state in the Soviet Union. The country was collectivized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

They certainly didn't create a free society, where men could create and sell the products of their efforts. They enslaved a whole population, and murdered millions, and wherever communism is tried these are the results. Communists invariable promote dogmatism and create an impoverished, enslaved population.

The underlying reason this happens is because collectivists consider the collective to be the highest good, and the individual's highest purpose is to serve the collective. This means that individuals become expendable and mere toys to be played with for the higher purpose. This results from altruism, and the idea that selfishness is evil. That's the fundamental driving force of communism and any form of collectivism.

You missed the part where I said I wasn't going to discuss this again. I've addressed this topic here before...many many times. Look for it if you're any interested in finding out my answer.

Edited April 14, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[ttime]

It's quite interesting how none of the replies by the collectivists in that forum have any sort of justification for their arguments against capitalism beyond "it's disgusting". I was pretty disappointed overall on their criticisms of Ayn Rand as well, they truly had nothing to contribute; most of their criticisms were nothing more than ad hominem statements. On the other hand, this only makes me realize how difficult it is to attack a philosophy founded on reason.

[Maken]

She was grossly misrepresented there as well. I found that to be the most upsetting aspect of the thread.

[L-C]

...most of their criticisms were nothing more than ad hominem statements.

Does "she sucks" even qualify as ad hominem? Doesn't it have to be an argument in the form of "she's wrong because she's X"?

On the other hand, this only makes me realize how difficult it is to attack a philosophy founded on reason.

Difficult as in impossible, yes.

[Greebo]

I went. I read the content. I left. There is no need to go back, nor point in dwelling on it.

[Maximus]

I went. I read the content. I left. There is no need to go back, nor point in dwelling on it.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "Jeez, what a bunch of maroons!"

[SapereAude]

I went. I read the content. I left. There is no need to go back, nor point in dwelling on it.

While dwelling on it is unpleasant it certainly can't be ignored. It needs to be addressed.

These people with their lack of reason, their self deception and their evil motives are numerous enough to vote us all into a collectivism from which it will be very difficult to recover.

There is a reason why Marx placed a certain value on what he referred to as "useful idiots".

Idiots may not be able to have a coherent justification for what they do- but it won't stop them from doing it.

[Greebo]

While dwelling on it is unpleasant it certainly can't be ignored. It needs to be addressed.

These people with their lack of reason, their self deception and their evil motives are numerous enough to vote us all into a collectivism from which it will be very difficult to recover.

These people are not interested in reason. How do you propose to change that?

Spend your energy on people that can be reached and who show a willingness to at least consider thinking about what we have to say.

Remember:

Edited April 15, 2010 by Greebo

[SapereAude]

I'm not talking about addressing them personally, sorry for the lack of clarity there.

But it is important to know what their arguments are- and many of them do have arguments that sound better to the uninformed than "you suck" (although to the informed there is little difference). Like it or not these people have real power. That reality, no matter how absurd, cannot be ignored or put aside.

Even the stupid can be very good at getting what they want.

What's worse is that the stupid can be very good at getting corrupt politicians what they want.

[Hairnet]

I am not too worried. The question was "Why is Ayn Rand popular".

The answers were

"Americans are selfish" (I wish)

"The ruling class believes in Objectivism of some kind" (They haven't believed in anything close to it for about 200 years).

Most of those people were overly emotional, and very poor communicators. I am not worried about them.

The well written one's were actually individualists who think syndicalism/mutualism is more compatible with individualism than capitalism is. Their heats are in the right place even if they are wrong (Reminds me of Oscar Wilde, claimed capitalism made people altruistic, which in his mind was a bad thing). So I am not worried about them.

[CastleBravo]

I think the Voltaire quote at the top of the forum today applies to the situation;

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short on: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."

Remember that. Our enemies are absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason to fear people so mentally feeble. It does suck that they can vote, but were not worried about politics yet, are we?

[Capitalism Forever]

Reading some of the posts there is almost like an esthetic experience. Things as they could be and should be!

[...] Rand's hold on politicians, businessmen and people who do matter [...] The US loves Rand [...] There has always been an entrenched individualist ideology that makes people think of themselves [...] Rand amplified that to the tenth degree [...] This is why I think that the US will be hard to win over because of the rampant right [...] leanings [...]